Used to work with a Palestinian guy back when sun-dried tomatoes became a foodie trend--he said back home the folks would just put trays of tomato slices on the roof & let the sun do it's work. But for non-desert dwellers a dehydrator is nice eh? Hopefully preserves more vitamins than canning. Good for backpacking etc too.

I have not unpacked the dehydrator yet, too much other stuff to worry about for the next few days, but we do have to pick the apples soon, they are getting nice and red now. The painter is still busy and suddenly everything is happening all at once.

Logged

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Ford and the other writers of Dearborn Publishing promoted the view of superiority built on race, and opposed Jews and other minorities as racially and culturally inferior. According to this view the ideas of socialism, liberalism and Marxism were plots used by inferior races to promote equality and thereby elevate themselves to the level of the superior Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or to lower Anglo-Saxon Protestants to their "inferior" level.

Below is a small example of the material found in The Dearborn Independent and The International Jew:

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?

Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our schools and universities. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race.

We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers of our nation were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came from Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny. The men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the arctics; the men who mastered the African veldt; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; men who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius- they are the Ruling People. Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by building it ever better and better, and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of "get," cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the Sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be!

If our sons follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thoughts be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret.

NAME THE ENEMY!

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

Ford's promotion of the 5 day work week, 8 hour work day, and his $5 a day program had some lesser known motivations as well. Ford was extremely opposed to unions and began promoting and adopting these policies as a way to make concession in order to prevent unionization in his plants. In addition he was interjecting an element of Biblical moral-ism into his policies as well. This was largely motivated by the fact that there was an association between atheism and the Socialist movement, which Ford opposed.

Ford had developed a "Sociological Department" for his company, the goal of which was to "put a soul into the company." Ford told the head of the department that he wanted him to, "put Jesus Christ in my factory." In order to qualify for the $5 a day wage that Ford was offering a worker had to submit to corporate surveillance of his lifestyle by the Sociological Department. Employees were subject to home inspections, had to prove they were sober, prove they regularly saved a portion of their paycheck, and prove that they were not "living riotously," which included activities such as gambling or staying out late.

Ford cooperated with the American Protective League, an organization of about 250,000 members, who's members were stationed in factories and mingled with the public, profiling working men and women. The objective of the APL was to profile workers and bring pressure against any workers who were organizing unions or getting involved in labor movements. Information collected by the APL was passed on to the Justice Department, military, and local law enforcement.

Ford's Sociological Department later developed into his "Service Department." In the book The Five Dollar Day, author Steven Meyer quotes Jonathon Norton Leonard from 1924:

"No one who works for Ford, is safe from spies-from superintendents on down to the poor creature who must clean a certain number of toilets an hour. There are spies who ask embarrassing questions of visitors' guides, spies who worm their way into labor unions, spies who speak every language under the sun. The system does not stop at the factory gates. An anonymous letter accusing a man of stealing Ford parts is enough to bring him before the 'Service Department.' He is forced to sign a 'Permission for Search' which allows Ford detectives to ransack his home, turn out all his poor possessions in hopes of finding a Ford incandescent lamp or a generator armature.

There are spies to watch these in turn."

Logged

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

When the Stock Markets crashed in 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression, it changed American attitudes about the economy. Unemployment rates sky rocketed and support grew for increased government involvement in the management of the national economy.

In 1932 governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was elected President of the United States. When Roosevelt came into office he began work on a wide range of economic policies that would take several years to sign into law. These policies would become collectively known as "The New Deal".

When Roosevelt began work on his economic reforms after his election, he did so with a large team of economists, businessmen, policy makers, and bankers; people from all different perspectives and backgrounds. By the time the Great Depression hit America and FDR had come into office, Benito Mussolini was at the height of his success and many Americans viewed Mussolini's programs as a proven and successful way to deal with the problems of economic depression.

Like the fascists in Europe, Americans were generally opposed to both Communism and "high finance," that is to say the extremely powerful capitalists who had come to dominate the American economy, and who many felt had far too much control over American life.

Since the time of Mussolini's rise to power men like US Ambassador to Italy Henry Fletcher, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, Charles Lindbergh, State Department head Norman Davis, and many others all agreed that his regime represented "solid opposition to communists, socialists, and anarchists."

Eleanor Roosevelt wrote that FDR's appointed American Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, had been "rhapsodizing about the achievements of Mussolini's new 'corporate state'" saying:

"Italy today is the most interesting experiment in government to come above the horizon since the formulation of the Constitution 150 years ago. [Mussolini] is one of the most remarkable persons . . . And they are doing a unique work in an original manner, so I am enjoying it all."

In 1931 Major General Smedley Butler publicly relayed a story about Mussolini, apparently told to him by Cornelius Vanderbilt Jr., in which Mr. Vanderbilt was riding with Mussolini and Mussolini hit a child with his car but kept on going and refused to stop. Butler's public telling of the story caused international outrage and Butler was then arrested, court-martialed by Secretary of War Stimson and told to apologize to Mussolini. Butler refused, deciding instead to retire. Nevertheless this illustrates the degree to which Mussolini and fascism were respected in America at the time.

In 1934 the American State Department proclaimed that the 99% victory of the Fascist Party in Italian elections "demonstrate incontestably the popularity of the Fascist regime."

The State Department, as late as 1937, praised Italian Fascism stating that it "brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy." The State Department continued to embrace fascism because of its anti-Communist position. Italy and Germany were being "made safe" by the fascists for American investment, and this is what was important in economic terms, especially during the Great Depression in America.

The New Deal policy makers took many cues from Mussolini's public works programs, and the way in which he organized labor and corporations in order to promote employment. These are all of the same basic types of programs that were implemented with the New Deal.

New Deal legislation saw the creation of a wide range of federal agencies and programs, which are listed below:

The net effect of all of this was to increase the role of the State in the economy for the purpose of creating stability, providing security for average citizens and businessmen alike, and to give the government a hand in directing the development of the national economy.

Mussolini, "instituted a program of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed." Along those same lines FDR promoted many public works projects, such as the Rural Electrification project and the building of many dams through the Tennessee Valley Authority, including the Hoover Dam. As with all of these projects, they were not done by the government, they were done by private companies with funding from the government. This is one crucial difference between fascist economies and socialist economies. In a fascist economy public taxation is used to funnel money to private corporations through the government, whereas in a socialist economy like that of the Soviet Union there is no taxation and industry itself is run by the government for profit.

A company called Six Companies is who won the bid for the Hoover Dam and the project was very successful for them. All of the public works programs brought corporations and the State closer together and allowed companies to build projects that they would have otherwise not been able to get the funding for. This also helped to provide much needed jobs for large numbers of unemployed Americans.

Also like the fascists of Europe, FDR held rallies and parades to promote his economic agenda, and encouraged citizens to show their support. In 1933 a public relations campaign was launched by the NRA to bolster popular support the organization and its initiatives. Business were encouraged to hang banners with the NRA logo and motto in their windows showing that they were complaint with NRA regulations.

Much is made about the eventual backing of the New Deal by the Communist Party of America in 1935, however the Communist Party backing only came as part of the "Popular Front" movement, which was when American Communists decided to support New Deal legislation in an effort to prepare American industry for conflict with the European fascists.

Despite the Popular Front backing of the New Deal though, Marxists continued to criticize the plan as essentially American fascism. Whether or not their charges were correct or not is actually beside the point, the point is that the New Deal does not represent left-wing socialist ideology, as is often thought, and despite the apparent support for the New Deal by left-wing political groups, much of that support actually came more in the form of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type support, Roosevelt and his New Deal being the enemy of European fascism. These views were reflected in many American Communist publications, such as this October 1941 publication of The Communist.

The New Deal was seen by the radical American left as the best hope to mobilize America in preparations for a fight against European fascism, which was always something that far left political groups were more concerned about than the average citizen. During the early and mid 1930s the average American citizen was not overly concerned with the goings on in Europe, and in fact many supported the Fascist regimes there because of their anti-Communist and pro-order policies, but the far American left was acutely aware of the magnitude of the problems in Europe and was opposed to the Fascist regimes from the start, because of course the Fascists were anti-leftist regimes.

This is why, even during the mid 1930s, members of the American far left were already thinking about war with the Fascist powers of Europe and indeed they were participating in that war early by volunteering to fight against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, the precursor to WWII, and this is why the New Deal was seen by the American far left in a different light than that of the American mainstream. To them it was about more than just domestic policy, they recognized it as the mobilization of industry to prepare for war, and as such backed the New Deal on those terms. The American Communist Party opposed the FDR administration's lack of support for anti-lynching legislation and what was seen as a weak stance on issues of racial and gender justice.

to be continued...

Logged

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

The Liberty dime with fasci on the back side was replaced in 1944 with the Roosevelt dime. Just like in 1989 when they declared communism was no longer a useful ideology, so it was in 1944 with fascism.

Of course we all know elements from both these ideologies remain with us in one form or another, so the question might be: what exact elements were kept and what elements were discarded? Off the top my head the most obvious is Christianity, and second, the family role of women. A quick look at propaganda posters from 1930's USSR shows women in the workforce next to men, whereas posters from Nazi Germany show women in family roles.

USA circa 1970. Not quite the Soviet model yet--it would be in the 1980's when women were shown running to work in their running shoes while carrying their high heels in a shoulder bag.

In the crush-proof purse pack

Nice touch. (stop, you're crushing my smokes)

The above ad does fit into the Soviet model though cause once women became "sexually liberated" most women had to get jobs and that's exactly what happened in the 1980's. The % of women in the workforce increased and production was up.

Of course we all know elements from both these ideologies remain with us in one form or another, so the question might be: what exact elements were kept and what elements were discarded? the family role of women. A quick look at propaganda posters from 1930's USSR shows women in the workforce next to men, whereas posters from Nazi Germany show women in family roles.

I remember that era, smoking commercials and all .... Another 'gift' from you-know-who!!! I am so lucky that my Mom was at home. (I took it all for granted.) The women who lost their husbands in WWII, sadly, had no choice and it had to be tough to be a latch-key kid.

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Thus, in 1934, the British Leninist theoretician R. Palme Dutt published a brief but scathing analysis of the New Deal as "social fascism" - as the reality of fascism cloaked with a thin veneer of populist demagogy. No Conservative opponent has ever delivered a more vigorous or trenchant denunciation of the New Deal. The Roosevelt policy, wrote Dutt, was to "move to a form of dictatorship of a war-type"; the essential policies were to impose a State monopoly capitalism through the NRA (National Industrial Recovery Act), to subsidize business, banking, and agriculture through inflation and the partial expropriation of the mass of the people through lower real-wage rates and to the regulation and exploitation of labor by means of government-fixed wages and compulsory arbitration. When the New Deal, wrote Dutt, is stripped of its "social-reformist 'progressive' camouflage," "the reality of the new Fascist type of system of concentrated State capitalism and industrial servitude remains," including an implicit "advance to war." Dutt effectively concluded with a quote from an editor of the highly respected Current History Magazine:

'The new America [the editor had written in mid-1933] will not be capitalist in the old sense, nor will it be socialist. If at the moment the trend is towards fascism, it will be an American fascism, embodying the experience, the traditions, and the hopes of a great middle-class nation.'

In a 1934 interview of Joseph Stalin by H.G. Wells, Joseph Stalin and H. G. Wells, Marxism VS. Liberalism: An Interview, published in 1937, Stalin explained that what was taking place in America under FDR was not in any way the same thing that was taking place in the U.S.S.R. Stalin stated:

"The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R. The aim which the Americans are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old destroyed economic basis an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganization of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its bad features, restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganizing society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society."

It must be noted that while the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) gave official support to the New Deal and President Roosevelt in 1935, it retracted that support and began opposing FDR in 1939 when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, also known as the Soviet-Nazi pact or Stalin-Hitler pact, was signed between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Soviets signed this pact in an effort to prevent what they felt would be an imminent invasion by the Germans had they not signed it, and Germany promoted the offer in an attempt to annex Poland without causing war. Nonetheless, Britain and France did declare war on Germany when the Germans invaded Poland. During the time between the signing of this pact and the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany, the CPUSA, at the direction of Moscow, called for non-involvement on the part of the United States in the European War and waged a campaign against FDR. The effect of the CPUSA's campaign was minor on the general public, but it did cause many members of the CPUSA to break ranks with the party and the party lost considerable credibility.

Neither Winston Churchill nor FDR were in favor of Communism, but they began more and more to view Germany and Italy as greater rising threats to the capitalist interests of their countries than was the Soviet Union. Churchill was very outspoken in his contempt for the Bolsheviks, but he, along with FDR, began trying to court Russia in what amounted to a containment strategy of Germany. This was a program that FDR himself felt very strongly about, but he faced a nation of citizens who were either extremely pacifistic, anti-war, or were sympathizers of the European fascists.

This is not to say that everyone during this time understood what was going on, the intentions of the various players in the situation, or the actual implications of the policies being implemented. FDR, while popularly supported overall, still received strong criticism from the "right" and "far left." The New Deal was representative of the types measures that were observed to work for the Fascists in Italy in pushing back Communist political advances, and in addition it was simply a pragmatic way to deal with the real problems of laissez-faire capitalism. The New Deal embodied measures of collectivism and centralization, but not with the same goals of socialist measures. The New Deal made no attempt to fundamentally change the American economic system, only to stabilize it and strengthen the capitalist system. The New Deal was implemented with all of the best intentions in mind.

In 1933 US Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd issued a speech titled Dilemma in the United States in Berlin at an American Club Dinner about the situation in America. Dodd was also a professor of history.

Parts of this speech read:

"The Federal Constitution is a balanced instrument of most limited powers, and all executive functions are subject to legislative and judicial approval. Only in time of war may a President take any decisive action. Lincoln violated the Constitution to save the Union, and Wilson sometimes transcended his powers for the obvious common good, though actual violations of the fundamental law were not a part of his practice. Might men interpret the events of March 1933 as warlike?

In the chaotic situation, with banks closing their doors everywhere, President Roosevelt acted as if he were in a state of war. He declared a bank holiday and hastened the assembling of congress. Excitement was everywhere as great as in 1917. Senators and Representatives recognized urge of the hour; but they also felt the pull of the American Legion and the pressure of local demands. It was a situation which legislators are apt to convert into an impasse, witness the panicky times of Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland when all Presidential action was defeated. But Roosevelt had converted his long struggle for recovering his health into a ten-year study of history and economics. He had learned how men behaved in past crises.

He held conferences with the greater committees of both houses of Congress; he consulted experts on subjects on which expert opinion was needful; he coaxed semi-hostile newspaper folk to delay their opposition; and he postponed appointments to ten thousand offices in which mere politicians were interested. It was a human picture, a Jefferson urging Southerners to abolish slavery, lest they themselves be abolished; a Wilson urging war to end war. And Roosevelt was successful. A banking war was enacted which gave the Federal Government powers which must paralyze all state systems. A control over the issue of securities was enacted which would probably have prevented the depression if applied in 1921-1929. The farmers of the West were told in legal form how much wheat they might plant, and cotton growers were ordered to plow up ten million acres of the 1933 crop. If railroads were to operate, their managers must submit to orders from the White House. The whole economic life of the country was taken in hand upon mandates voted by both houses of Congress. There had never been anything like it before, but some way to recovery must be sought, else even greater catastrophe than that of 1929 might come. It was not revolution as men are prone to say. It was a popular expansion of governmental powers beyond all constitutional grants; and nearly all men everywhere hope the President may succeed. If he is able to put half the unemployed back to work; if the new banking law and corporation control yield half the desired results, the cause of democracy and personal liberty may survive the onslaughts of our times."

This is a fairly accurate account of what happened and the perception of the conditions under which it did happen. It was a change, a significant change, of that there is no doubt, and it was a change of the economically fascist type, but that is not meant in a negative way per-se. It was a change that brought the economy under a new level of control by the federal government, and it was done for much the same reasons that it was done in Italy and Germany, in order to save the economy from collapse or vulnerability. Unlike Italy and Germany however, the "threat of communism" was essentially nonexistent in America, whereas in Italy and Germany communists held significant political power, which was part of the reason why regimes there were much more extreme.

FDR himself would have in no way considered any of his policies "fascist," nor would he ever have compared himself to the fascists of Europe, of that there is little doubt. FDR despised dictatorship and he despised the actions of the Nazis especially, yet the fact remains that fundamentally they were all walking along many of the same lines. Their objectives and ideologies were very different but they were all faced with the same issues and all arrived at similar solutions. The problems inherent in laissez-faire capitalism and the opposition to Marxist ideology resulted in the middle ground development of economic fascism in all three places, and there was a measure, especially early on, of admiration and imitation of the Italian system by contributors to the New Deal.

As was the case in Germany and Italy, people began to look more and more to the State, and to Roosevelt himself, as their savior. The State was playing a much larger role in people's lives under Roosevelt than at any other time in American history.

In addition to his economic agenda, FDR shared some other traits of fascist leaders of the day as well, such as his "cult of personality." FDR was, and perhaps still is, one of the best loved presidents of all time. He was an excellent speaker and motivator and unlike any president before or since he made a connection to the people. FDR held frequent radio addresses to the public, his "Fireside Chats", which took on the air of a personal conversation.

Much like the Italians and Germans did with Mussolini and Hitler, the American public identified strongly with FDR as "their leader," however FDR's approach and message was much different than that of the European fascists. FDR did not preach hate or conquest, or try to fill people's heads with messages of superiority. It has to be remembered too though that in fact the majority of the message of the fascists of Europe was not one of hate, they too spoke primarily about unity and building a stronger nation.

Though much is made about the fact that FDR served an amazing four terms in office, what is often overlooked is that FDR was ready to retire after his second term, in fact he nearly declined the 1940 Democratic Party nomination. It was at first said that FDR would not run for office again, but at the Democratic National Convention he received a standing ovation and chants of "We want Roosevelt, We want Roosevelt," and indeed he did finally accept by saying "If nominated and elected, I could not in these times refuse to take the inaugural oath, even if I knew I would be dead in thirty days." (a reference to his poor health)

to be continued

Logged

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

I remember that era, smoking commercials and all .... Another 'gift' from you-know-who!!! I am so lucky that my Mom was at home. (I took it all for granted.) The women who lost their husbands in WWII, sadly, had no choice and it had to be tough to be a latch-key kid.

The feminist agenda in the US, Can, Aus, and the EU is already in place; the current new agenda in these places is the gay agenda. But, in Africa and Asia the feminist instrument is the primary instrument being pushed to control population and to turn non-tax and non-interest paying women into full time working and paying liberated woman.

The feminist agenda in the US, Can, Aus, and the EU is already in place; the current new agenda in these places is the gay agenda. But, in Africa and Asia the feminist instrument is the primary instrument being pushed to control population and to turn non-tax and non-interest paying women into full time working and paying liberated woman.

In Africa the women have to work anyway 'cause so many of the men folks are shiftless or either spend their pay on bar girls.

In Africa the women have to work anyway 'cause so many of the men folks are shiftless or either spend their pay on bar girls.

Yes, but they're not paying taxes or interest--that's the goal. In Africa there will probably more emphasis on contraception, creating new laws along alimony lines(debt prison for the men), and finally property rights for women. There after they can bring in industries, shops, and such and turn them into taxpayers and with credit, interest payers.

In places like Pakistan that already has infrastructure in place, the emphasis is more on culture, and contraception, hence the orchestrated hit on the girl in Pakistan.

Yes, but they're not paying taxes or interest--that's the goal. In Africa there will probably more emphasis on contraception, creating new laws along alimony lines(debt prison for the men), and finally property rights for women. There after they can bring in industries, shops, and such and turn them into taxpayers and with credit, interest payers.

In places like Pakistan that already has infrastructure in place, the emphasis is more on culture, and contraception, hence the orchestrated hit on the girl in Pakistan.

"From small things baby, big things one day come". So you want African women to stay poor just from conspiracy-theory fears about debt? A little loan to buy a sewing machine, then comes enough income to qualify for a car loan & then a home mortgage. Everybody gets rich, everybody's happy.

Hillary Clinton promotes microfinance!

Tuesday, January 13, during her inaugural speech as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton spoke about the importance of microfinance and promised to work under the Obama Administration.

She particularly mentioned the mother of the President-Elect, Ann Dunham; a pioneer of microfinance in Indonesia. Hillary Clinton also mentioned that in its own work on microfinance all over the world, from Bangladesh to Chile, Vietnam to South Africa, she saw how small loans given to women enable them to raise the level of life and help to transform local economies. Hillary Clinton stressed that the interest of Ann Dunham to microfinance has also undoubtedly influenced the vision of her son Barack Obama. She added in conclusion that "they will be honored to continue her work in the months and years to come ..."

But, in Africa and Asia the feminist instrument is the primary instrument being pushed to control population and to turn non-tax and non-interest paying women into full time working and paying liberated woman.

Indirectly they intend to do the same to these women in Africa, Asia, etc. than what they did to us. 'Liberate' and enslave them financially. What irks certain quarters, is the fact that there is no interest penalty in the Muslim world. Gaddafi gave every married couple a gift of $60,000. The Central Banks were miffed and the results were atrocious!

Logged

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Indirectly they intend to do the same to these women in Africa, Asia, etc. than what they did to us. 'Liberate' and enslave them financially. What irks certain quarters, is the fact that there is no interest penalty in the Muslim world. Gaddafi gave every married couple a gift of $60,000. The Central Banks were miffed and the results were atrocious!

Libya on any given year could produce 10% of the world's oil supply for a given year. Libya's population is somewhere around 4 million? I'm not going to the math, but I'll quote the former Sec. of State Madame Albright, when she said, regarding Russia--"they have too many resources for their population." The case of Libya might be they have 10X the resources to population when compared to Russia.

Libya on any given year could produce 10% of the world's oil supply for a given year. Libya's population is somewhere around 4 million? I'm not going to the math, but I'll quote the former Sec. of State Madame Albright, when she said, regarding Russia--"they have too many resources for their population." The case of Libya might be they have 10X the resources to population when compared to Russia.

Same case with Libya, lots of natural wealth and no Federal Reserve Bank!!!

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

His four terms were served at public request because he was very popular; he inspired people, and the same can be said of the European fascists; they all had developed a "cult of personality." They were inspiring people, as a member of the SS said of Hitler:

"As far as Hitler is concerned, we regarded him as a true man. He was only a corporal when he earned the Iron Cross First Class in World War I. In those days that was quite an achievement. When he spoke at meetings or rallies he managed to captivate his audience. He was able to get us in a mood where we believed everything he said and we left fired with enthusiasms. Everyone I met respected and trusted Hitler and I myself shared these feelings and opinions." - Standartenoberjunker Jan Munk - SS

The Term "Liberal" Redefined

The term "liberal" in America has been redefined from its classical meaning. Liberalism, in the classical sense of the word is a laissez-faire approach to economics and social issues. Liberalism in the true sense of the word means "hands off," "let people do what they will".

In America the term "liberal" has become synonymous with "big government." This is because FDR proclaimed himself to be a champion of liberalism. Thus what happened during FDR's 12-year term in office is that he single handedly changed the American perception of what "liberal" meant.

Below are a few quotes from FDR that demonstrate how FDR really created the modern image of what it means to be "a liberal" by proclaiming himself to be a liberal and proclaiming that his actions were of a liberal nature.

"A radical is a man with both feet firmly planted-in the air. A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards. A liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands at the behest of his head." - date unknown

"Throughout the world, change is the order of the day.... In most nations social justice, no longer a distant ideal, has become a definite goal. We seek it through tested liberal traditions.

We find our population suffering from old inequalities.... In spite of our efforts... we have not weeded out the overprivileged and we have not effectively lifted up the underprivileged. .

We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear... the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well...." - 1935 Inaugural Address

Speaking about very wealthy American capitalists:

"The "privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction...." They erected a "new industrial dictatorship" which controlled the "hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor...."

"For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real...."

"Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended ..." - 1936

FDR's 1944 "Economic Bill of Rights":

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people-whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth-is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights-among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however-as our industrial economy expanded-these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all-regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

There is some merit to the way in which FDR used the word liberalism as well though. When FDR used the word liberalism or when he described his policies as "liberal", what he meant was that private power was becoming anti-liberal. In other words, private power was becoming controlling. Wealthy capitalists had consolidated so much power in America that by government taking a "hands off" approach all it was doing was allowing these private institutions and individuals to dictate the country's economic conditions and thereby allowing these private entities to become controlling forces in people's lives.

So, in that respect FDR saw his policies of taking some of that power away from the private institutions as "liberal" in the sense that is was restoring liberty to the common man.

FDR's policies dramatically increased the scope and power of the federal government and thus became associated with "big government" and "tax and spend," when in fact neither the idea of "big government" or "tax and send" are "liberal ideas." They are in fact fundamentally fascist qualities, which were implemented for the purpose of solving real problems that existed in the American economy. What has to be remembered is that aside from all the bad things which we now associate with fascism, the fascists did develop some successful policies and they were popularly supported at the time.

The entire world was facing many of the same issues. The period of the 1920s and 1930s represented a worldwide crisis in capitalism. The crisis was in laissez-faire capitalism and fascism was the means of "saving" capitalism by: number one: stopping the blatant abuses of the system, and number two: preventing an overthrow of capitalism by socialism and communism.

to be continued...

Logged

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done"....Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.